The organisation said it was particularly concerned the wind turbines were likely to have an effect on the National Park coastline at Keyhaven, both in terms of its natural beauty and people's enjoyment.

The wind park means up to 194 wind turbines could be put off the Dorset and New Forest coast and to the west of the Isle of Wight, with an underground cable connection to the National Grid running through the New Forest National Park to an onshore substation at Mannington, north of Ferndown.

Planning committee chairman Pat Wyeth said: 'The onshore cable route could also have an adverse impact on the landscape of this part of the New Forest, as there is no commitment to replace trees which will be lost and there could be a permanent scar running through the National Park, creating a long-term change in the landscape along the 40 metre-wide cable route.”

Comments (14)

What the hell does the New Forest have to do with what is planned for the Poole and Bournemouth areas. Nothing, so keep out of it. There is enough Nimbys already shouting their mouths off over trivial matters, and not taking a blind bit of notice over why this project is needed.

Incidently, the windfarm planned for 8 miles off the Sussex coast, has been approved. Good news for Navitus Bay.

What the hell does the New Forest have to do with what is planned for the Poole and Bournemouth areas. Nothing, so keep out of it. There is enough Nimbys already shouting their mouths off over trivial matters, and not taking a blind bit of notice over why this project is needed.
Incidently, the windfarm planned for 8 miles off the Sussex coast, has been approved. Good news for Navitus Bay.TheDistrict

What about the oil pipeline that runs through the forest from Wytch Farm to Fawley, has that caused a scar on the landscape? For goodness sake stop pandering to blinkered individuals that have no regard for future generations. We're running out of oil, we need renewables, at least Sussex has seen sense!

What about the oil pipeline that runs through the forest from Wytch Farm to Fawley, has that caused a scar on the landscape? For goodness sake stop pandering to blinkered individuals that have no regard for future generations. We're running out of oil, we need renewables, at least Sussex has seen sense!Ivy

At present there is no significant fully tested alternative renewable source to wind. The government has a target to meet which it wants to exceed by at least 5%. The objections raised so far have been nothing more than over egged aesthetic reasons. There are large offshore wind farms around the coast of the UK that went through a similar process of nimbyism and got built. The impact on the local economy is a great plus with jobs and good earnings available for thousands. The way the government responded in Parliament last week was indicative of the writing being on the wall. It will happen.....and I really hope it does. Many more people will benefit as opposed to the selfish minority.

At present there is no significant fully tested alternative renewable source to wind. The government has a target to meet which it wants to exceed by at least 5%. The objections raised so far have been nothing more than over egged aesthetic reasons. There are large offshore wind farms around the coast of the UK that went through a similar process of nimbyism and got built. The impact on the local economy is a great plus with jobs and good earnings available for thousands. The way the government responded in Parliament last week was indicative of the writing being on the wall. It will happen.....and I really hope it does. Many more people will benefit as opposed to the selfish minority.adspacebroker

Meanwhile in the real world Australia has today repealed its Carbon Tax. A day to rejoice as a major country wakes up and realises all this greeny climate change nonsense is designed purely bankrupt the developed world and cripple the ordinary person with enormous energy bills.

Meanwhile in the real world Australia has today repealed its Carbon Tax. A day to rejoice as a major country wakes up and realises all this greeny climate change nonsense is designed purely bankrupt the developed world and cripple the ordinary person with enormous energy bills.harrythered

The cable route for the Rampion offshore wind farm, approved yesterday, cuts right through the South Downs National Park.

The cable route for Navitus Bay affects a tiny portion of the south eastern edge of the New Forest National Park. I don't think the Park Authority has much of a case here.

The cable route for the Rampion offshore wind farm, approved yesterday, cuts right through the South Downs National Park.
The cable route for Navitus Bay affects a tiny portion of the south eastern edge of the New Forest National Park. I don't think the Park Authority has much of a case here.mooninpisces

mooninpisces wrote:
The cable route for the Rampion offshore wind farm, approved yesterday, cuts right through the South Downs National Park.

The cable route for Navitus Bay affects a tiny portion of the south eastern edge of the New Forest National Park. I don't think the Park Authority has much of a case here.

That should be south western edge!

[quote][p][bold]mooninpisces[/bold] wrote:
The cable route for the Rampion offshore wind farm, approved yesterday, cuts right through the South Downs National Park.
The cable route for Navitus Bay affects a tiny portion of the south eastern edge of the New Forest National Park. I don't think the Park Authority has much of a case here.[/p][/quote]That should be south western edge!mooninpisces

harrythered wrote:
Meanwhile in the real world Australia has today repealed its Carbon Tax. A day to rejoice as a major country wakes up and realises all this greeny climate change nonsense is designed purely bankrupt the developed world and cripple the ordinary person with enormous energy bills.

Well said, its about time this country woke up and smelt the coffee, because of the present warm weather I expect the climate change muppets will be all over the press saying, " I told you so", then when it gets colder it starts all over again.
Green taxes cost jobs and push up energy prices for us all but reduce nothing, someone is making a lot of money from this global scam and its about time it was stopped altogether, get back to reality, its just warm weather in the summer and cold in the winter, simple.

[quote][p][bold]harrythered[/bold] wrote:
Meanwhile in the real world Australia has today repealed its Carbon Tax. A day to rejoice as a major country wakes up and realises all this greeny climate change nonsense is designed purely bankrupt the developed world and cripple the ordinary person with enormous energy bills.[/p][/quote]Well said, its about time this country woke up and smelt the coffee, because of the present warm weather I expect the climate change muppets will be all over the press saying, " I told you so", then when it gets colder it starts all over again.
Green taxes cost jobs and push up energy prices for us all but reduce nothing, someone is making a lot of money from this global scam and its about time it was stopped altogether, get back to reality, its just warm weather in the summer and cold in the winter, simple.Hessenford

I'm really puzzled by the psychology of those who click their reactions to comments (reactions which some commenters seem to confuse with local democracy).

At 10.49 I made a factual comment about cable routes and National Parks. One minute later, i realised I had made a minor error, and corrected it. At the time of writing, my first comment has received one thumbs downs, but the second has received three. Does this mean that the more factually correct a comment is, the more negative reaction it attracts?

I'm really puzzled by the psychology of those who click their reactions to comments (reactions which some commenters seem to confuse with local democracy).
At 10.49 I made a factual comment about cable routes and National Parks. One minute later, i realised I had made a minor error, and corrected it. At the time of writing, my first comment has received one thumbs downs, but the second has received three. Does this mean that the more factually correct a comment is, the more negative reaction it attracts?mooninpisces

Ivy wrote:
What about the oil pipeline that runs through the forest from Wytch Farm to Fawley, has that caused a scar on the landscape? For goodness sake stop pandering to blinkered individuals that have no regard for future generations. We're running out of oil, we need renewables, at least Sussex has seen sense!

And just how much oil, gas and electric is used to build these massive monstrosities in the first place, how much oil, gas and electric is used to transport and site these massive monstrosities, how much oil, gas and electric is used to service, rebuild and replace these massive monstrosities, how much power will these things generate, no where near as much as it cost to build and site them in the first place I'll bet.
These things strip us of much needed energy and return only a small percentage, with the recent warm spell we have had they would produce nothing.
The builders and promoters of these wind farms are the same as the tree huggers and anoraks who protest at suggested fracking sites, they protest at a new form of energy but being the hypocrites they are they use petrol vehicles to get there and wear clothing that is produced with the use of oil, gas and electric.
There is no climate change, the world is going through a natural cycle, let nature take its course, we shouldn't be interfering.

[quote][p][bold]Ivy[/bold] wrote:
What about the oil pipeline that runs through the forest from Wytch Farm to Fawley, has that caused a scar on the landscape? For goodness sake stop pandering to blinkered individuals that have no regard for future generations. We're running out of oil, we need renewables, at least Sussex has seen sense![/p][/quote]And just how much oil, gas and electric is used to build these massive monstrosities in the first place, how much oil, gas and electric is used to transport and site these massive monstrosities, how much oil, gas and electric is used to service, rebuild and replace these massive monstrosities, how much power will these things generate, no where near as much as it cost to build and site them in the first place I'll bet.
These things strip us of much needed energy and return only a small percentage, with the recent warm spell we have had they would produce nothing.
The builders and promoters of these wind farms are the same as the tree huggers and anoraks who protest at suggested fracking sites, they protest at a new form of energy but being the hypocrites they are they use petrol vehicles to get there and wear clothing that is produced with the use of oil, gas and electric.
There is no climate change, the world is going through a natural cycle, let nature take its course, we shouldn't be interfering.Hessenford

mooninpisces claims to be "puzzled" by all the fuss. Well, lets tick off what he supports. 1/ Wind turbines out at sea which costs twice as much as on land. 2/ The cost of £140 billion by 2020 to pay for them. 3/ Higher electricity prices. 4/ He claims we will be in trouble when oil and gas run out - we certainly will be with wind turbines as a substitute only operating at 20 per cent capacity? for 30 per cent of the time. And what happens when the wind stops? How many people in favour of allowing wind turbines, know that not a single gas fired power station has been removed for the very reason that wind turbines are a disaster, completely impractical and useless.
While mooninpisces is obsessed by wasting so much money in strident times with the NHS in dire need of £30 billion to provide a basis service by the next financial year, what does he prioritise - simply avoids the question by claiming its not relevant, yet the green monster movement is supposed to want to save life.
The only sensible answer I have ever had out of mooninpisces is that he supports nuclear power. That's carbon free and cheaper compared to wind turbines and the accompanying subsidies they rely on. The Europeans who own these turbines do not sink a single penny of their own into there construction costs and no one is prepared to invest in high risk technology, yet they make astronomical profits, because some consumers are like turkeys voting for Christmas?

mooninpisces claims to be "puzzled" by all the fuss. Well, lets tick off what he supports. 1/ Wind turbines out at sea which costs twice as much as on land. 2/ The cost of £140 billion by 2020 to pay for them. 3/ Higher electricity prices. 4/ He claims we will be in trouble when oil and gas run out - we certainly will be with wind turbines as a substitute only operating at 20 per cent capacity? for 30 per cent of the time. And what happens when the wind stops? How many people in favour of allowing wind turbines, know that not a single gas fired power station has been removed for the very reason that wind turbines are a disaster, completely impractical and useless.
While mooninpisces is obsessed by wasting so much money in strident times with the NHS in dire need of £30 billion to provide a basis service by the next financial year, what does he prioritise - simply avoids the question by claiming its not relevant, yet the green monster movement is supposed to want to save life.
The only sensible answer I have ever had out of mooninpisces is that he supports nuclear power. That's carbon free and cheaper compared to wind turbines and the accompanying subsidies they rely on. The Europeans who own these turbines do not sink a single penny of their own into there construction costs and no one is prepared to invest in high risk technology, yet they make astronomical profits, because some consumers are like turkeys voting for Christmas?rubberbandman5

mooninpisces wrote:
I'm really puzzled by the psychology of those who click their reactions to comments (reactions which some commenters seem to confuse with local democracy).

At 10.49 I made a factual comment about cable routes and National Parks. One minute later, i realised I had made a minor error, and corrected it. At the time of writing, my first comment has received one thumbs downs, but the second has received three. Does this mean that the more factually correct a comment is, the more negative reaction it attracts?

It was the comment that earned you the thumbs down not the mistake!

[quote][p][bold]mooninpisces[/bold] wrote:
I'm really puzzled by the psychology of those who click their reactions to comments (reactions which some commenters seem to confuse with local democracy).
At 10.49 I made a factual comment about cable routes and National Parks. One minute later, i realised I had made a minor error, and corrected it. At the time of writing, my first comment has received one thumbs downs, but the second has received three. Does this mean that the more factually correct a comment is, the more negative reaction it attracts?[/p][/quote]It was the comment that earned you the thumbs down not the mistake!Turtlebay

mooninpisces wrote:
I'm really puzzled by the psychology of those who click their reactions to comments (reactions which some commenters seem to confuse with local democracy).

At 10.49 I made a factual comment about cable routes and National Parks. One minute later, i realised I had made a minor error, and corrected it. At the time of writing, my first comment has received one thumbs downs, but the second has received three. Does this mean that the more factually correct a comment is, the more negative reaction it attracts?

It was the comment that earned you the thumbs down not the mistake!

14 hours on, and there are still more thumbs downs for my correction of an error(-13) than for my factual statement that contained the error (-11) - ie there is more negative reaction to something that corrects an error than to something that contains an error.

rubberbandman5 (8.59pm yesterday) misunderstands completely. I am not puzzled by what he calls "all the fuss" when anyone presents facts that challenge their prejudices., I am puzzled by the psychology of people who view the correction of an error even more negatively than a comment which contains facts that they find disturbing but which also contains an error.

The list rubberbandman5 presents of what I am supposed to support and what i am suppose to see as irrelevant is almost entirely either false or grossly distorted. Which probably only serves to illustrate the low level of respect for truth to which my comment was drawing attention.

[quote][p][bold]Turtlebay[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]mooninpisces[/bold] wrote:
I'm really puzzled by the psychology of those who click their reactions to comments (reactions which some commenters seem to confuse with local democracy).
At 10.49 I made a factual comment about cable routes and National Parks. One minute later, i realised I had made a minor error, and corrected it. At the time of writing, my first comment has received one thumbs downs, but the second has received three. Does this mean that the more factually correct a comment is, the more negative reaction it attracts?[/p][/quote]It was the comment that earned you the thumbs down not the mistake![/p][/quote]14 hours on, and there are still more thumbs downs for my correction of an error(-13) than for my factual statement that contained the error (-11) - ie there is more negative reaction to something that corrects an error than to something that contains an error.
rubberbandman5 (8.59pm yesterday) misunderstands completely. I am not puzzled by what he calls "all the fuss" when anyone presents facts that challenge their prejudices., I am puzzled by the psychology of people who view the correction of an error even more negatively than a comment which contains facts that they find disturbing but which also contains an error.
The list rubberbandman5 presents of what I am supposed to support and what i am suppose to see as irrelevant is almost entirely either false or grossly distorted. Which probably only serves to illustrate the low level of respect for truth to which my comment was drawing attention.mooninpisces

The way our climate is changing as a result of our addiction to fossil fuels, most of this area will be under the sea within the next 50 years.
So let`s not do ANYTHING to try and reverse climate change and just admire the view while it`s still there.

The way our climate is changing as a result of our addiction to fossil fuels, most of this area will be under the sea within the next 50 years.
So let`s not do ANYTHING to try and reverse climate change and just admire the view while it`s still there.Luke Ashley